Two illegal requests, to be more precise. Last 18 May, the AffCom demanded (by mail) that the recently elected (15 April) WMPT board stopped acting as such. However, under the Portuguese law, that board, which had been elected in a validated General Assembly, was the only valid board of the association, and the one responsible to fulfill the Association obligations with the Portuguese state. If they doubted that, they should have requested legal advice, instead of taking decisions over a subject they clearly did not understood.
Last 11 June, the AffCom demanded (by hangout meeting) that a new General Assembly must be conveyed by what they called "a neutral party", namely the former head of the table of the General Assembly elected in 2015. That too is against the law. Under the Portuguese law, when there is a legally elected board in functions, as was the case, it's the board (or the head of the table of the General Assembly, in the name of the board) that conveys a General Assembly (Article 173º of the Portuguese Civil Code). A General Assembly cannot be called by some random person designed at will by some external body. If the WMPT had headed the AffCom demands, the recent General Assembly of 1 September (realized by AffCom imposition) would have been illegal under the country law, being conveyed by a party that had not any right to do that. Concerning the alleged (by the AffCom) lack of validity of the 15 April General Assembly, it was completely unfounded, as any lawyer knowledgeable of the Portuguese law could explain to them. It was with that General Assembly (and not with the one of 1 September, which was a mere imposition of the AffCom, with almost no practical value) that WMPT submitted its tax form (Modelo 22) for the 2017 fiscal year, updated the names of the legal representatives of Wikimedia Portugal in the Revenue Services (Autoridade Tributária - Tax Authority), as well as regularized the access to the association bank account. Paulo Pine W <[email protected]> escreveu no dia terça, 25/09/2018 à(s) 22:01: > I don't want affiliates to get a free pass to create problems or neglect > their responsibilities such as by failing to produce reports, misusing > trademarks, misappropriating funds, etc., and I am glad to see that AffCom > is taking action when it thinks that there are problems. However, I am > concerned that AffCom may currently have some internal issues that should > be addressed. > > As far as I know, AffCom hasn't shared its explanations for some of these > actions in public, which places limits on the public's ability to evaluate > AffCom's choices, but the actions being described in this thread give me > cause for concern. Included in those concerns is the claim that AffCom made > an illegal request of an affiliate. I would expect AffCom to do legal > research (probably done by WMF Legal on Affcom's behalf) before making > requests. I would also expect that the WMF Board would ensure that AffCom > has access to any support that it needs, such as staff time from WMF Legal. > > Regarding whether a public warning letter from Affcom could lead to the end > of an affiliate, I can understand how a warning letter could concern > potential partner organizations, but given our choice of problems I think > that this is the lesser problem. I think that Affcom's actions, good and > bad, should be public in almost every case. If AffCom makes an error in > sending a warning letter, then hopefully the affiliate can explain the > situation to the partner organization. If a partner decides to discontinue > a relationship, that may be regrettable (especially if the warning letter > was erroneous) but hopefully the loss of a partnership would be a temporary > setback from which the affiliate can recover. > > I think that expecting perfection from anyone, whether AffCom or an > affiliate, would be expecting too much. Hopefully organizations and people > can be "net positives" and can be engaged in continuous learning and > continuous self-improvement. > > One theme that is common to AffCom and affiliate boards is that they are > primarily composed of people who are volunteering their time. My impression > is that this often correlates with a mixed level of quality and dedication > from the participants. Improving the quality of governance in general is an > interest of mine, and I would be interested to hear others' thoughts about > how to do that, keeping in mind that many of these people are generously > volunteering their limited time. > > Pine > ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine ) > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
